Global biodiversity monitoring: From data sources to Essential Biodiversity Variables
Instituto Superior Técnico1, Harvard University2, University of Porto3, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg4, Higher University of San Andrés5, Zoological Society of London6, United States Geological Survey7, American Museum of Natural History8, The Lodge9, University of Hamburg10, University of Toulouse11, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ12, University of Lisbon13, Butterfly Conservation14
TL;DR: In this article, the authors classify sources of primary observations into four types: extensive and intensive monitoring schemes, ecological field studies and satellite remote sensing, and demonstrate the links between data sources, EBVs and indicators and discuss how different sources of biodiversity observations can be harnessed to inform EBVs.
About: This article is published in Biological Conservation.The article was published on 2017-09-01 and is currently open access. It has received 194 citations till now.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: Many examples of conservation success show that losses can be halted and even reversed, and building on these lessons to turn the tide of biodiversity loss will require bold and innovative action to transform historical relationships between human populations and nature.
Abstract: Biodiversity is essential to human well-being, but people have been reducing biodiversity throughout human history. Loss of species and degradation of ecosystems are likely to further accelerate in the coming years. Our understanding of this crisis is now clear, and world leaders have pledged to avert it. Nonetheless, global goals to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss have mostly not been achieved. However, many examples of conservation success show that losses can be halted and even reversed. Building on these lessons to turn the tide of biodiversity loss will require bold and innovative action to transform historical relationships between human populations and nature.
528 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors used the Essential Biodiversity Variable framework to describe the range of biodiversity data needed to track progress towards global biodiversity targets, and assessed strengths and gaps in geographical and taxonomic coverage.
460 citations
TL;DR: It is shown how a set of species turnover indices provide more information content regarding temporal trends in biodiversity, as they reflect how dominance and identity shift in communities over time, and several limitations of species richness as a metric of biodiversity change are summarized.
Abstract: Global concern about human impact on biological diversity has triggered an intense research agenda on drivers and consequences of biodiversity change in parallel with international policy seeking to conserve biodiversity and associated ecosystem functions. Quantifying the trends in biodiversity is far from trivial, however, as recently documented by meta-analyses, which report little if any net change in local species richness through time.
Here, we summarise several limitations of species richness as a metric of biodiversity change and show that the expectation of directional species richness trends under changing conditions is invalid. Instead, we illustrate how a set of species turnover indices provide more information content regarding temporal trends in biodiversity, as they reflect how dominance and identity shift in communities over time.
We apply these metrics to three monitoring datasets representing different ecosystem types. In all datasets, nearly complete species turnover occurred, but this was disconnected from any species richness trends. Instead, turnover was strongly influenced by changes in species presence (identities) and dominance (abundances). We further show that these metrics can detect phases of strong compositional shifts in monitoring data and thus identify a different aspect of biodiversity change decoupled from species richness.
Synthesis and applications: Temporal trends in species richness are insufficient to capture key changes in biodiversity in changing environments. In fact, reductions in environmental quality can lead to transient increases in species richness if immigration or extinction has different temporal dynamics. Thus, biodiversity monitoring programmes need to go beyond analyses of trends in richness in favour of more meaningful assessments of biodiversity change.
420 citations
Cites background from "Global biodiversity monitoring: Fro..."
...While it is clear that documenting and understanding biodiversity change is critical to these assessments, there is little agreement on how to monitor and quantify biodiversity change (Buckland, Magurran, Green, & Fewster, 2005; Hill et al., 2016; Proença et al., 2016; Vačkář, Ten Brink, Loh, Baillie, & Reyers, 2012)....
[...]
...While it is clear that documenting and understanding biodiversity change is critical for global and regional assessments, there is little agreement on how to monitor and quantify such change (Buckland et al., 2005; Hill et al., 2016; Proença et al., 2016; Vačkář et al., 2012)....
[...]
...…documenting and understanding biodiversity change is critical to these assessments, there is little agreement on how to monitor and quantify biodiversity change (Buckland, Magurran, Green, & Fewster, 2005; Hill et al., 2016; Proença et al., 2016; Vačkář, Ten Brink, Loh, Baillie, & Reyers, 2012)....
[...]
Yale University1, Monash University2, Florida Museum of Natural History3, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation4, University of Colorado Boulder5, University of Auckland6, NatureServe7, California Institute of Technology8, Leipzig University9, University of South Florida10, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg11, University of Porto12, World Conservation Monitoring Centre13, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ14, Office of Environment and Heritage15
TL;DR: The unified concept presented links disparate data to downstream uses and informs a vision for species population monitoring in which data collection is closely integrated with models and infrastructure to support effective biodiversity assessment.
Abstract: Species distributions and abundances are undergoing rapid changes worldwide. This highlights the significance of reliable, integrated information for guiding and assessing actions and policies aimed at managing and sustaining the many functions and benefits of species. Here we synthesize the types of data and approaches that are required to achieve such an integration and conceptualize ‘essential biodiversity variables’ (EBVs) for a unified global capture of species populations in space and time. The inherent heterogeneity and sparseness of raw biodiversity data are overcome by the use of models and remotely sensed covariates to inform predictions that are contiguous in space and time and global in extent. We define the species population EBVs as a space–time–species–gram (cube) that simultaneously addresses the distribution or abundance of multiple species, with its resolution adjusted to represent available evidence and acceptable levels of uncertainty. This essential information enables the monitoring of single or aggregate spatial or taxonomic units at scales relevant to research and decision-making. When combined with ancillary environmental or species data, this fundamental species population information directly underpins a range of biodiversity and ecosystem function indicators. The unified concept we present links disparate data to downstream uses and informs a vision for species population monitoring in which data collection is closely integrated with models and infrastructure to support effective biodiversity assessment. Changes in species distribution and abundance can be captured using essential biodiversity variables (EBVs). Here, the authors synthesize the data and approaches needed for EBVs that allow monitoring of populations in both space and time.
243 citations
University of Amsterdam1, Conservation International2, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars3, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg4, Higher University of San Andrés5, Spanish National Research Council6, University of Alcalá7, Florida Museum of Natural History8, Cornell University9, Zoological Society of London10, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ11, University of Paris12, University of Gothenburg13, University of Twente14, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation15, International Center for Tropical Agriculture16, Aston University17, University of Melbourne18, Global Biodiversity Information Facility19, University of Bari20, University of Eastern Finland21, University of Toulouse22, University of Trento23, Office of Environment and Heritage24, Australian Museum25, Cardiff University26
TL;DR: The challenges of a ‘Big Data’ approach to building global EBV data products across taxa and spatiotemporal scales, focusing on species distribution and abundance are assessed.
Abstract: Much biodiversity data is collected worldwide, but it remains challenging to assemble the scattered knowledge for assessing biodiversity status and trends. The concept of Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) was introduced to structure biodiversity monitoring globally, and to harmonize and standardize biodiversity data from disparate sources to capture a minimum set of critical variables required to study, report and manage biodiversity change. Here, we assess the challenges of a 'Big Data' approach to building global EBV data products across taxa and spatiotemporal scales, focusing on species distribution and abundance. The majority of currently available data on species distributions derives from incidentally reported observations or from surveys where presence-only or presence-absence data are sampled repeatedly with standardized protocols. Most abundance data come from opportunistic population counts or from population time series using standardized protocols (e.g. repeated surveys of the same population from single or multiple sites). Enormous complexity exists in integrating these heterogeneous, multi-source data sets across space, time, taxa and different sampling methods. Integration of such data into global EBV data products requires correcting biases introduced by imperfect detection and varying sampling effort, dealing with different spatial resolution and extents, harmonizing measurement units from different data sources or sampling methods, applying statistical tools and models for spatial inter- or extrapolation, and quantifying sources of uncertainty and errors in data and models. To support the development of EBVs by the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON), we identify 11 key workflow steps that will operationalize the process of building EBV data products within and across research infrastructures worldwide. These workflow steps take multiple sequential activities into account, including identification and aggregation of various raw data sources, data quality control, taxonomic name matching and statistical modelling of integrated data. We illustrate these steps with concrete examples from existing citizen science and professional monitoring projects, including eBird, the Tropical Ecology Assessment and Monitoring network, the Living Planet Index and the Baltic Sea zooplankton monitoring. The identified workflow steps are applicable to both terrestrial and aquatic systems and a broad range of spatial, temporal and taxonomic scales. They depend on clear, findable and accessible metadata, and we provide an overview of current data and metadata standards. Several challenges remain to be solved for building global EBV data products: (i) developing tools and models for combining heterogeneous, multi-source data sets and filling data gaps in geographic, temporal and taxonomic coverage, (ii) integrating emerging methods and technologies for data collection such as citizen science, sensor networks, DNA-based techniques and satellite remote sensing, (iii) solving major technical issues related to data product structure, data storage, execution of workflows and the production process/cycle as well as approaching technical interoperability among research infrastructures, (iv) allowing semantic interoperability by developing and adopting standards and tools for capturing consistent data and metadata, and (v) ensuring legal interoperability by endorsing open data or data that are free from restrictions on use, modification and sharing. Addressing these challenges is critical for biodiversity research and for assessing progress towards conservation policy targets and sustainable development goals.
212 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: Intensive forestry practiced within subtropical forests resulted in the highest rates of forest change globally, and boreal forest loss due largely to fire and forestry was second to that in the tropics in absolute and proportional terms.
Abstract: Quantification of global forest change has been lacking despite the recognized importance of forest ecosystem services. In this study, Earth observation satellite data were used to map global forest loss (2.3 million square kilometers) and gain (0.8 million square kilometers) from 2000 to 2012 at a spatial resolution of 30 meters. The tropics were the only climate domain to exhibit a trend, with forest loss increasing by 2101 square kilometers per year. Brazil's well-documented reduction in deforestation was offset by increasing forest loss in Indonesia, Malaysia, Paraguay, Bolivia, Zambia, Angola, and elsewhere. Intensive forestry practiced within subtropical forests resulted in the highest rates of forest change globally. Boreal forest loss due largely to fire and forestry was second to that in the tropics in absolute and proportional terms. These results depict a globally consistent and locally relevant record of forest change.
7,890 citations
BirdLife International1, United Nations Environment Programme2, Zoological Society of London3, Statistics Netherlands4, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill5, Old Dominion University6, Conservation International7, Food and Agriculture Organization8, University of Virginia9, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds10, University of Queensland11, University of Cambridge12, National Center for Atmospheric Research13, World Wide Fund for Nature14, South African National Parks15, UNESCO16, University of British Columbia17, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research18, The Nature Conservancy19, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center20, American Bird Conservancy21, Stellenbosch University22, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources23
TL;DR: Most indicators of the state of biodiversity showed declines, with no significant recent reductions in rate, whereas indicators of pressures on biodiversity showed increases, indicating that the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 2010 targets have not been met.
Abstract: In 2002, world leaders committed, through the Convention on Biological Diversity, to achieve a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. We compiled 31 indicators to report on progress toward this target. Most indicators of the state of biodiversity (covering species' population trends, extinction risk, habitat extent and condition, and community composition) showed declines, with no significant recent reductions in rate, whereas indicators of pressures on biodiversity (including resource consumption, invasive alien species, nitrogen pollution, overexploitation, and climate change impacts) showed increases. Despite some local successes and increasing responses (including extent and biodiversity coverage of protected areas, sustainable forest management, policy responses to invasive alien species, and biodiversity-related aid), the rate of biodiversity loss does not appear to be slowing.
3,993 citations
TL;DR: The biodiversity of eukaryote species and their extinction rates, distributions, and protection is reviewed, and what the future rates of species extinction will be, how well protected areas will slow extinction Rates, and how the remaining gaps in knowledge might be filled are reviewed.
Abstract: Background A principal function of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is to “perform regular and timely assessments of knowledge on biodiversity.” In December 2013, its second plenary session approved a program to begin a global assessment in 2015. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and five other biodiversity-related conventions have adopted IPBES as their science-policy interface, so these assessments will be important in evaluating progress toward the CBD’s Aichi Targets of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020. As a contribution toward such assessment, we review the biodiversity of eukaryote species and their extinction rates, distributions, and protection. We document what we know, how it likely differs from what we do not, and how these differences affect biodiversity statistics. Interestingly, several targets explicitly mention “known species”—a strong, if implicit, statement of incomplete knowledge. We start by asking how many species are known and how many remain undescribed. We then consider by how much human actions inflate extinction rates. Much depends on where species are, because different biomes contain different numbers of species of different susceptibilities. Biomes also suffer different levels of damage and have unequal levels of protection. How extinction rates will change depends on how and where threats expand and whether greater protection counters them. Different visualizations of species biodiversity. ( A ) The distributions of 9927 bird species. ( B ) The 4964 species with smaller than the median geographical range size. ( C ) The 1308 species assessed as threatened with a high risk of extinction by BirdLife International for the Red List of Threatened Species of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. ( D ) The 1080 threatened species with less than the median range size. (D) provides a strong geographical focus on where local conservation actions can have the greatest global impact. Additional biodiversity maps are available at www.biodiversitymapping.org. Advances Recent studies have clarified where the most vulnerable species live, where and how humanity changes the planet, and how this drives extinctions. These data are increasingly accessible, bringing greater transparency to science and governance. Taxonomic catalogs of plants, terrestrial vertebrates, freshwater fish, and some marine taxa are sufficient to assess their status and the limitations of our knowledge. Most species are undescribed, however. The species we know best have large geographical ranges and are often common within them. Most known species have small ranges, however, and such species are typically newer discoveries. The numbers of known species with very small ranges are increasing quickly, even in well-known taxa. They are geographically concentrated and are disproportionately likely to be threatened or already extinct. We expect unknown species to share these characteristics. Current rates of extinction are about 1000 times the background rate of extinction. These are higher than previously estimated and likely still underestimated. Future rates will depend on many factors and are poised to increase. Finally, although there has been rapid progress in developing protected areas, such efforts are not ecologically representative, nor do they optimally protect biodiversity. Outlook Progress on assessing biodiversity will emerge from continued expansion of the many recently created online databases, combining them with new global data sources on changing land and ocean use and with increasingly crowdsourced data on species’ distributions. Examples of practical conservation that follow from using combined data in Colombia and Brazil can be found at www.savingspecies.org and www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3zjeJW2NVk.
2,360 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors identify ten contrasting perspectives that shape the vulnerability debate but have not been discussed collectively and present a set of global vulnerability drivers that are known with high confidence: (1) droughts eventually occur everywhere; (2) warming produces hotter Droughts; (3) atmospheric moisture demand increases nonlinearly with temperature during drought; (4) mortality can occur faster in hotter Drought, consistent with fundamental physiology; (5) shorter Drought can become lethal under warming, increasing the frequency of lethal Drought; and (6) mortality happens rapidly
Abstract: Patterns, mechanisms, projections, and consequences of tree mortality and associated broad-scale forest die-off due to drought accompanied by warmer temperatures—“hotter drought”, an emerging characteristic of the Anthropocene—are the focus of rapidly expanding literature. Despite recent observational, experimental, and modeling studies suggesting increased vulnerability of trees to hotter drought and associated pests and pathogens, substantial debate remains among research, management and policy-making communities regarding future tree mortality risks. We summarize key mortality-relevant findings, differentiating between those implying lesser versus greater levels of vulnerability. Evidence suggesting lesser vulnerability includes forest benefits of elevated [CO2] and increased water-use efficiency; observed and modeled increases in forest growth and canopy greening; widespread increases in woody-plant biomass, density, and extent; compensatory physiological, morphological, and genetic mechanisms; dampening ecological feedbacks; and potential mitigation by forest management. In contrast, recent studies document more rapid mortality under hotter drought due to negative tree physiological responses and accelerated biotic attacks. Additional evidence suggesting greater vulnerability includes rising background mortality rates; projected increases in drought frequency, intensity, and duration; limitations of vegetation models such as inadequately represented mortality processes; warming feedbacks from die-off; and wildfire synergies. Grouping these findings we identify ten contrasting perspectives that shape the vulnerability debate but have not been discussed collectively. We also present a set of global vulnerability drivers that are known with high confidence: (1) droughts eventually occur everywhere; (2) warming produces hotter droughts; (3) atmospheric moisture demand increases nonlinearly with temperature during drought; (4) mortality can occur faster in hotter drought, consistent with fundamental physiology; (5) shorter droughts occur more frequently than longer droughts and can become lethal under warming, increasing the frequency of lethal drought nonlinearly; and (6) mortality happens rapidly relative to growth intervals needed for forest recovery. These high-confidence drivers, in concert with research supporting greater vulnerability perspectives, support an overall viewpoint of greater forest vulnerability globally. We surmise that mortality vulnerability is being discounted in part due to difficulties in predicting threshold responses to extreme climate events. Given the profound ecological and societal implications of underestimating global vulnerability to hotter drought, we highlight urgent challenges for research, management, and policy-making communities.
1,786 citations
University of Lisbon1, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation2, Virginia Tech College of Natural Resources and Environment3, California Institute of Technology4, Wageningen University and Research Centre5, Cardiff University6, American Museum of Natural History7, BirdLife International8, University of British Columbia9, Food and Agriculture Organization10, Australian Museum11, Leibniz Association12, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds13, University of Maryland, College Park14, Yale University15, Stanford University16, Monash University17, Kyoto University18, Zoological Society of London19, United States Geological Survey20, University of Sussex21, United Nations Environment Programme22, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources23, Office of Environment and Heritage24
TL;DR: With the first plenary meeting of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) soon under way, partners are developing—and seeking consensus around—Essential Biod diversity Variables (EBVs) that could form the basis of monitoring programs worldwide.
Abstract: Reducing the rate of biodiversity loss and averting dangerous biodiversity change are international goals, reasserted by the Aichi Targets for 2020 by Parties to the United Nations (UN) Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) after failure to meet the 2010 target (1, 2). However, there is no global, harmonized observation system for delivering regular, timely data on biodiversity change (3). With the first plenary meeting of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) soon under way, partners from the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON) (4) are developing—and seeking consensus around—Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) that could form the basis of monitoring programs worldwide.
1,074 citations